Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: superscript x in ipa
« Last post by Daniel on January 14, 2018, 01:07:28 AM »
Sounds exactly like redoppiamento sintattico, then, except that the etymology of the 'mystery consonant' may be unknown, while for Italian it is known (from Latin) but varies for different words.
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: superscript x in ipa
« Last post by panini on January 13, 2018, 11:14:16 PM »
Phonetically it doesn't mean anything. Phonologically, it refers to the fact that it's in the class of words with the "mystery consonant", sometimes claimed to be /h/, which causes gemination. But that is a phonological detail, not an audible facts. I think it is annoying that someone would claim to be phonetically transcribing when they are phonologically analyzing, but Wiki is full of annoyances.

Clements & Keyser in CV phonology have a decent analysis of this, and Kiparsky (naturally) has written up most of the relevant fact, in possibly two papers (which will be available on his web page).
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: The way the GVS does not affect much of my speech...
« Last post by panini on January 13, 2018, 11:07:32 PM »
I'd vote for your first set of transcriptions, excluding the ɑ/ɔ thing that I lack, æʊ instead of aʊ (another dialect thing), and anythnig that has to do with specific conventions of transcribing (not really i:, but that is close enough and it is a standard spelling). Or: are you asking whether [ɛɪ] is more accurate than [e:] from a phonetic POV? I can't tell how you pronounce things.
Morphosyntax / Re: Syntactic Trees in your posts! [instructions]
« Last post by Daniel on January 11, 2018, 08:55:11 PM »
Update/bug fix: I've now gone through the PHPSyntaxTree code and found where to fix this so it works with current server settings.

This change applies retroactively now so your tree above (for example) has v' displayed correctly, and it should work in the future.

Let me know if you find any more bugs!
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: superscript x in ipa
« Last post by Daniel on January 11, 2018, 12:10:31 PM »
Another option is just to search for the symbol itself online and see what comes up. Often Wikipedia has an entry for orthographic or transcription uses of symbols.

In this case, I think I found the answer that way:
That links here:

Just from the information there, it would appear that superscript /x/ represents an etymological blend of /-k/ and /-h/, which was my first interpretation. But that doesn't seem to be right. Instead, apparently superscript x represents gemination.

The article on Finnish phonology has:
Gemination or a tendency of a morpheme to cause gemination is sometimes indicated with a superscripted "x", e.g. vene /ʋeneˣ/. Examples of gemination:

In my opinion, that's just a bizarre (mis)use of IPA. But I guess it's traditional for some research in Finnish etymology/philology? I have no expertise in that area so I can't comment further.

In short, it isn't a sound at all but a representation of the fact that a following consonant would be geminated (doubled/lengthened) when combined with this word. It seems that this actually is a historical remnant of the original /-k/ or /-h/ ending (see above), which was lost as an independent sound but preserved in contact with another consonant with which it assimilated.

This reminds me of Italian "redoppiamento sintattico" (or syntactic gemination/doubling) where an Italian word that in Latin had a final consonant may now trigger geminiation on a following word even though the consonant itself has been lost.
An example given there is "Andiamo a casa" ('we.go to home'), pronounced /...ak:asa/, with a geminated /k/, reflecting the fact that Italian 'a' comes from Latin 'ad', so that now-lost /d/ has an 'echo' just triggering gemination on the first consonant of a following word.

I guess something similar happens in Finnish and that is sometimes indicated with a superscript x!

(In defense of that approach, there isn't any other obvious way to do this in IPA so some additional notation is necessary. Another option would be something like /terʋe-:/, but that is confusing and doesn't quite convey what is intended. I've seen similar notation for tones applying to a following syllable/word though.)
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: superscript x in ipa
« Last post by 「(゚ペ) on January 11, 2018, 11:16:00 AM »
Hi, and thanks for answering my question so quickly. So, this is IPA or was intended to be IPA, but as you say it must be a non-standard transcription or it must be screwed up somehow. It comes from a Wiktionary entry, and here is a copy/paste of the exact text: 'IPA(key): /ˈterʋeˣ/'. That 'key' in parentheses links to a page on suomen phonology, but I found nothing there that explains what this means.

I thought this might be about velarization, but like you mentioned /ˠ/ is typically used for that, and velarization is usually applied to a consonant and not a vowel. There is also an audio sample which accompanies the sound, and both vowels sound the same to me. I'll include a link to the page I found this transcription on with the audio clip.

I also thought that it might be a very weak /x/, but I don't hear that in the audio sample.

I definitely don't have the transcription wrong. It appears that way on the original page as well as when I copy/paste it onto this forum. I suppose the original typer could have intended for the character to be an /e̽/ and somehow typed the character incorrectly, but I haven't been able to replicate  this mistake, but I have easily been able to replicate the original text by adding a superscript 'x' to a lowercase 'e'.

Alas, I have checked the IPA for eesti keel and suomi and have googled the phenomenon, but I have found no answers. Maybe I will figure out what is going on here after further study of the language. Thanks for your help anyway.
That's specific enough that I doubt there is an introductory book specifically. You should just read current (or classic) research articles about it.

However, for Kratzer's approach to Formal Semantics in general-- including modals-- there are some textbooks that will get you started, if that's what you want.

Three that come to mind (used in classes I've taken or taught):

Kate Kearns (2000 or 2011 2nd ed.): Semantics, publ. by Palgrave. -- an accessible undergraduate level introduction to Formal Semantics broadly compatible with Kratzer's work with some basics of modal logic

Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer (1998): Semantics in Generative Grammar. -- A similar but more detailed and challenging graduate-level introduction to Formal Semantics. A good place to start but modals are only mentioned in passing. After this background, see the followup textbook for modals specifically:

Kai von Fintel & Irene Heim's draft textbook (2011): Intensional Semantics. (As far as I know still unpublished but accessible online and useful.) It picks up where the Heim & Krazter textbook ends and goes into more depth with mostly 'intensional' topics, including a full chapter on modality (with reference to Krazter's work and a short but helpful bibliography).

So it depends on how "introductory" you want, but I think those textbooks would be at least a good place to start. Beyond that, I'd go right to Krazter's research articles (the bibliography at the end of the chapter in the third textbook might get you started). You could also check some handbooks/encyclopedias for overview chapters.
Could anyone suggest a good Introductory book on Angelika Kratzer's work on modals. Thanks in advance
Morphosyntax / Re: Prepositional Complementisers and ACC
« Last post by binumal on January 11, 2018, 07:59:47 AM »
Prepositions are ACC case assigners. The subject of a non-finite clause with prepositional complementiser for gets ACC case from the preposition:

"I would like for [TP him to join me]"-

Why does the PRO subject of a gerund not receive ACC case when the non-finite clause is introduced by a preposition?

"Thank youi for [TP PROi joining me]"
The PRO clause is not a TP,Its a CP- the preposition for cannot case mark the PRO across a CP. Hence PRO cannot be case marked by for here.And note that for in the second sentence is not a prepositional complementizer(as far as I know) ,Its a head of the PP that is adjuncted to the VP 'thank you"
Phonetics and Phonology / The way the GVS does not affect much of my speech...
« Last post by OnAQuest on January 11, 2018, 01:41:51 AM »
Or at least not in the way standard american or british is,when I speak english I more or less use the vowels like they are used in french and italian or better in Standard Danish,most if not everyone understands me perfectly when I speak a language they understand ,when I speak French ,Dutch,Danish and Italian I use the same exact vowels as I do in English and native speakers from all understand me perfectly ...some even say how clear I speak and from this i find that against to what many linguists say the only vowel sound that really moved in english are ''i'' and ''ou'' along with with ''u''also I find my tongue moves not at all,it is all about where I am aiming the sound in my head and vowels are not ordered in a quadrilateral but rather one after the other in a line ,I also sing and I am saying this cause I clearly have a way of doing it that not many do ,where I aim the vowels sounds rather than shape them with my tongue which makes singing a breeze rather than a constant fight with the muscles in my mouth ,I always remember singing and speaking like this and when I recently tried any other(just cause I thought what the heck) way I would have my neck throbbing after singing , my singing sounded like a dying walrus with a spoon stuck in it's throat,  but i wanna know if anyone out there feels they have a similar way or maybe a different way than what linguists seem to say ...

How many linguists say Standard American English Vowels are:

bight [aɪ]
beet [iː]
bit [ɪ]
bate [eɪ]
bet [ɛ]
bat [æ]
bot [ɑ]
bout [aʊ]
bought [ɔ]
but [ʌ]
burt [ɜ˞]
boat [oʊ]
beaut [ɪ̯u]
bute [ɪ̯u]
sew [oʊ]
boy [ɔɪ]
choir [ʊ̯ɑ] 
you [ɪ̯u]
yacht [ɪɑ]

How general American speakers seem to say the vowels(compared to the way I say them):

bight [aɪ̯]/[æɪ̯]
beet [ɨː]/[eː]
bit [ɪ]
bate [eɪ̯]
bet [e̞]/[ɛ]
bat [æ]/[ɛə]/[eə]/[ɘə]
bot [ä]
bout [äʊ̯]/[aʊ̯]/[æʊ̯]
bought [ɒ]
but [ə]/[ɜ]/[ʌ]
burt [ɚ]/[ɜ˞]
boat [oʊ̯]
boot /[ʊu̯]
beaut [ɪ̯ʉu̯]
bute [ɪ̯ʉu̯]
sew [oʊ̯]/[əʊ̯]
choir [ʊ̯ɑ]/[ʊä] 
you [ɪ̯ʉu̯]
yacht [ɪ̯a]/[ɪɑ]/[ɪɒ]

How I say the vowels:

beet [ɨ]
bit [ɪ]
bate [ɘ]
bet [ɪ̈]/[e]
bat [ɛ]/[a]
bot [ä]/[a]/[ɶ]
bout [ɐ](kinda rounded)
bought [ɑ]/[ɔ]
but [ʏ]/[ə]
burt [ɚ]
boat [ɔ]

bute [y]
sew [ø]
choir [ʊ̯̈ɛ]/[ʊ̯̈ɘ]
you [ʏ̯y]
yacht [ɪ̯a]
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10